Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

by confuzzled dude Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:33 pm

The U.S. has treated Russia like a loser since the end of the Cold War.
"The common assumption that the West forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus won the Cold War is wrong . The fact is that the Cold War ended by negotiation to the advantage of both sides.

Because the collapse of the Soviet Union happened so soon afterward, people often confuse it with the end of the Cold War. But they were separate events, and the former was not an inevitable outcome of the latter. Moreover, the breakup of the U.S.S.R. into 15 separate countries was not something the United States caused or wanted.

"Vladimir Putin was elected in 2000 and initially followed a pro-Western orientation. When terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, he was the first foreign leader to call and offer support. He cooperated with the United States when it invaded Afghanistan, and he voluntarily removed Russian bases from Cuba and Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam.

What did he get in return? Some meaningless praise from President George W. Bush, who then delivered the diplomatic equivalent of swift kicks to the groin: further expansion of NATO in the Baltics and the Balkans, and plans for American bases there; withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; invasion of Iraq without U.N. Security Council approval; overt participation in the “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; and then, probing some of the firmest red lines any Russian leader would draw, talk of taking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Americans, heritors of the Monroe Doctrine, should have understood that Russia would be hypersensitive to foreign-dominated military alliances approaching or touching its borders."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-states-has-treated-russia-like-a-loser-since-the-cold-war/2014/03/14/b0868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html?hpid=z6

-> Valid points, the US should be blamed more than anyone they neither treated Russia with respect nor trusted.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:45 am

in internaitonal relations, two countries are like husband and wife. will never accept their mistakes.mistake is always on the other side.

by Propagandhi711 Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:45 am

comrade, the only surprise is how long it took you to find this piece

by truthbetold Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:14 pm

No one can get any closure to the actual deal makers than a us ambassador of the time. He may be right on short term reasons for any treaty or agreement.
But the historical reasons that forced Gorbachev to rethink and compelled Soviet union to negotiations were economics. The Soviet system was economically bankrupt by mid seventies. Whatever juice that left was spent on Afghan adventure.
ordinary citizens were quite unhappy in Soviet union in 1980s. Added to that Regan defence budgets and more importantly electronic technology development hastened Soviet collapse. (World wide Tv, control systems for various systems and a massive leap of consumer electronics over defence technology).

It is not accurate to say end of cold war and collapse of Soviet union were unrelated. Again primary historical reason was the failed economics. But short term reason for Soviet collapse was the communist party internal dispute between hardliners and Gorbachev over relations with west and Usa and ending of cold war. The old guard seized power to reinstate old style cold war politics but Russian army refused to oblige. Yeltsen then pushed aside Gorbachev to grab power.

by confuzzled dude Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:33 pm

truthbetold wrote:No one can get any closure to the actual deal makers than a us ambassador of the time. He may be right on short term reasons for any treaty or agreement.
But the historical reasons that forced Gorbachev to rethink and compelled Soviet union to negotiations were economics. The Soviet system was economically bankrupt by mid seventies. Whatever juice that left was spent on Afghan adventure.
ordinary citizens were quite unhappy in Soviet union in 1980s. Added to that Regan defence budgets and more importantly electronic technology development hastened Soviet collapse. (World wide Tv, control systems for various systems and a massive leap of consumer electronics over defence technology).

It is not accurate to say end of cold war and collapse of Soviet union were unrelated. Again primary historical reason was the failed economics. But short term reason for Soviet collapse was the communist party internal dispute between hardliners and Gorbachev over relations with west and Usa and ending of cold war. The old guard seized power to reinstate old style cold war politics but Russian army refused to oblige. Yeltsen then pushed aside Gorbachev to grab power.

Still.. the US gets more credit than it really deserves for the downfall of the USSR; after all the US defense budget was bumped dramatically due to a major "blunder" by the OMB not by "design" or "brains" of Reagan administration, in the end US came out of this on top by sheer luck not due to a sound strategy.

by truthbetold Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:45 pm

Cd
What do you mean by blunder? Us defence budget went up dramatically at that time and there were explicit statements that it was an attempt to bankrupt Soviet budget. It did that. Of course on the other side it also led to huge Usa deficits.

Usa fought the cold war for 45 years and led the western alliance. Whatever may be your interpretation of 1980s events, Usa deserves a lot of credit for the end of coldwar and end of Soviet union.

by confuzzled dude Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:49 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
What do you mean by blunder? Us defence budget went up dramatically at that time and there were explicit statements that it was an attempt to bankrupt Soviet budget. It did that. Of course on the other side it also led to huge Usa deficits.

Usa fought the cold war for 45 years and led the western alliance. Whatever may be your interpretation of 1980s events, Usa deserves a lot of credit for the end of coldwar and end of Soviet union.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19860715&id=gm4fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v2kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6584,5481106

by confuzzled dude Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:01 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Cd
What do you mean by blunder? Us defence budget went up dramatically at that time and there were explicit statements that it was an attempt to bankrupt Soviet budget. It did that. Of course on the other side it also led to huge Usa deficits.

Usa fought the cold war for 45 years and led the western alliance. Whatever may be your interpretation of 1980s events, Usa deserves a lot of credit for the end of coldwar and end of Soviet union.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19860715&id=gm4fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v2kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6584,5481106

-> Here is another article:

"The Reagan Administration justifiably gets credit for destroying the Evil Empire, but the irony of it is that the successful strategy arose as a result of a blunder rather than rational decision. David Stockman tells us that the dramatic increase in the defense budget arose as a result of a mistake."

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sovietcollapse.htm

by truthbetold Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:16 pm

Cd
I do not know what this story is trying to tell us. The numbers got in by accident. Then they discovered that it works and stuck by it. These kind of inside beltway stories are good for weekend cocktail conversations. For some reason such mistakes do not happen when Clinton was cutting defence budgets during peace dividend.
I am not doubting the veracity of the story but there is always more to it than we know. I cannot add the rest of the detail since the then defence secretary and Regan did not comment on the story.

by confuzzled dude Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:41 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
I do not know what this story is trying to tell us. The numbers got in by accident. Then they discovered that it works and stuck by it.

They didn't discover anything they had no choice but stick with it to save their face.

truthbetold wrote:
These kind of inside beltway stories are good for weekend cocktail conversations. For some reason such mistakes do not happen when Clinton was cutting defence budgets during peace dividend.
I am not doubting the veracity of the story but there is always more to it than we know. I cannot add the rest of the detail since the then defence secretary and Regan did not comment on the story.

Either it is a fact or a rumor, can't be both. The very fact that no one denied the story tells us it indeed was true.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:14 pm

truthbetold wrote:Cd
What do you mean by blunder? Us defence budget went up dramatically at that time and there were explicit statements that it was an attempt to bankrupt Soviet budget. It did that. Of course on the other side it also led to huge Usa deficits.

Yes.it was true and reagan did claim Soviet demise to his budget and military build up.

But, what the idiot is not alive to see its consequences on US economy. The US deficit was 800 billion with an annual budget of some 1.1 Trillion.

Today the annual budget is some 2.8 trillion with a deficit of 16 trillion, and a much smaller military than it was in 1980...

...so much for the Reagan damage to US...and it helped Ruskies to become a promising country and the US in debt to China and the world. nature has a nasty way of balancing things out in the long-term.

by Sponsored content

Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?

Re: Who’s the bully — the U.S. or Russia?